The judgment established the applicability of the U.P. Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1972 to public premises owned by a local authority, and affirmed the requirement of serving a legal notice under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 for eviction.

This writ petition has been filed for setting aside the order dated 10-122002 passed by the District Judge, Nainital and the order dated 24-9-2002 passed by respondent nO.3 (contained in Annexure Nos. 1 and 2 respectively). The petitioner has further prayed for direction to respondents not to evict the petitioner from the premises in question (Argles Ford) which has been duly allotted to her. By the order dated 24-9-2002, the Prescribed Authority had confirmed the notice issued to the petitioner under Section 4(1) of the U.P. Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1972 (for short the Act) and also passed an order of eviction against the petitioner from the public premises. By order dated 10-12-2002 the appeal of the petitioner has been dismissed by the learned District Judge, Nainital.

2. Relevant facts, giving rise to the present writ petition, in brief are that a building known as Argles Ford in Mallital, Nainital was allotted to Chaudhary Shivraj Singh on December 02, 1957 by the then Rent Control and Eviction Officer Nainital (for short the RC. & E.O.). At that time, MIs Parma Shiv Lal Sah was the landlord of the house in question. On or about 274-1976, the said house was purchased by the Kumaon University from the heirs of the original landlord and Sri Shiv Raj Singh continued to be the tenant. After the death of Shiv Raj Singh the University asked the petitioner to vacate the premises and it also served a notice/letter dated 22-12-1978. The said letter was challenged by the petitioner in the court of Munsif Nainital by filing Original Suit No. 01 of 1979 against Kumaon University. The suit was decreed on 21-8-1979 by Sri S.C. Agarwal, the then Munsif Nainital and the University was restrained from evicting the plaintiff-petitioner except in accordance with law. The petitioner approached the University for purchase of the building which appears to have been considered acceptable on certain terms and the Government was moved by the University for necessary permission by letter dated 24-04-1981. However, the deal could not be materialized between the parties. Ultimately, a notice dated 6-4-2000 was served upon the petitioner on behalf of the University on 9-4-2000 thereby the tenancy of the petitioner was terminated on the expiry of 30 days from the date of service of notice. In reply to the said notice, the petitioner appears to have paid a sum of Rs. 73,345/- vide Cheque No. 057497 dated 8-5-2000 towards part of the demanded arrears of rent and interest thereon and she sent reply through her counsel on 8-5-2000, but she did not vacate the premises in question. Subsequently, on 16-8-2000, the University through its Registrar moved an application under Section 4(1) of the Act for eviction of the petitioner from the premises in question, which was earlier known as Strawberry Cottage. Eviction Case No. 22/49 of 2000-2001 was registered before the Prescribed Authority and notice in Form A was issued to the petitioner. She contested the application of the University and filed her objections on 18-5-2001. She admitted the University to be the owner and landlord of the premises known as Argles Ford but contended that she still continues to be the tenant of the premises in question and she is not liable to be evicted.

3. Before the prescribed Authority, the University examined P.W.1 Prakash Chandra Pande, Assistant Engineer and PW. 2 Sri C.M. Tewari, Officer on Special Duty while the petitioner requested the Prescribed Authority for getting her statement recorded on commission. One Onkar Goswami Advocate was appointed Commissioner, but the petitioner sought adjournments time and against and ultimately on 12-10-2001, the petitioner moved an application for being discharged from the list of witnesses. The Prescribed Authority after hearing the parties passed the impugned order, confirmed the notice under Section 4( 1) of the Act and ordered the eviction by issuing Form B against the petitioner vide judgmen